I think if anything the anti-sexual fetish people have dominated the project. Many articles on this range of subjects have been deleted or stripped of content. All articles on sexual acts are illustrated by drawings not photographs, even when good free photographs are available. But at least anatomy is anatomy, insect or human.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Um, yeah. Just this morning I was trying to fix up something involving insect mouth parts, and in clicking on "Labium", I was treated to a full color photo of female genitalia, up close and personal. There are a lot of booby-trapped links like that; one wonders how many ordinarily innocent phrases lead to similar surprises because the sexual fetish community-- and therefore Wikipedia-- has co-opted the phrase.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/08, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but what sets this category apart from any other, say for instance [[Category:Dogs in clothing]] (at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dogs_in_clothing ). Commons
Here are some things:
- It's NSFW. I accidentally clicked on "masturbating amy" at work,
thinking it couldn't possibly be...
- It's not safe for kids. Apparently some libraries already ban
wikipedia. Making institutions unwilling to use our resource is not helping spread knowledge.
- I would happily reorganise a "dogs in clothing" category while my
girlfirend was watching.
- It's bad for our reputation to be known as a source of pornography.
It's not bad for our reputation to be known as a source of dogs in clothing photos.
is simply a collection of free media representing different aspects of human life. And not to get on a high horse or anything, but there is absolutely nothing shameful about female masturbation. It's a perfectly healthy part of human life, it should be encouraged, and information about it should be distributed as widely as possible.
Yes, you are introducing a moral argument which is probably best kept out. There's obviously nothing wrong having photos of "shameful" topics (think of political events, massacres etc).
In addition, three of the images are fine works of art (the Klimt one is spectacular and the Japanese one is mezmerizing) and another one is fascinating illustration, a true picture of its time.
I think the illustrations - particularly historical - are ok. They probably pass the tests listed above.
Frankly, I find your position prudish and counter-productive with respect for what we are trying to achieve. We shouldn't censor based on morality.
Heh, it's not often I get called prudish. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "censoring based on morality", because I don't think I'm proposing censoring, and I'm not bringing morality into anything. I'm suggesting that storing and making available porn is not good for our mission.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l